New in MSL 2.3 is a template that can be used in the place of a scalar
type in a stage-in struct. This template has methods which interpolate
the varying at the given points. Curiously, you can't set interpolation
attributes on such a varying; perspective-correctness is encoded in the
type, while interpolation must be done using one of the methods. This
makes using this somewhat awkward from SPIRV-Cross, requiring us to jump
through a bunch of hoops to make this all work.
Using varyings from functions in particular is a pain point, requiring
us to pass the stage-in struct itself around. An alternative is to pass
references to the interpolants; except this will fall over badly with
composite types, which naturally must be flattened. As with
tessellation, dynamic indexing isn't supported with pull-model
interpolation. This is because of the need to reference the original
struct member in order to call one of the pull-model interpolation
methods on it. Also, this is done at the variable level; this means that
if one varying in a struct is used with the pull-model functions, then
the entire struct is emitted as pull-model interpolants.
For some reason, this was not documented in the MSL spec, though there
is a property on `MTLDevice`, `supportsPullModelInterpolation`,
indicating support for this, which *is* documented. This does not appear
to be implemented yet for AMD: it returns `NO` from
`supportsPullModelInterpolation`, and pipelines with shaders using the
templates fail to compile. It *is* implemeted for Intel. It's probably
also implemented for Apple GPUs: on Apple Silicon, OpenGL calls down to
Metal, and it wouldn't be possible to use the interpolation functions
without this implemented in Metal.
Based on my testing, where SPIR-V and GLSL have the offset relative to
the pixel center, in Metal it appears to be relative to the pixel's
upper-left corner, as in HLSL. Therefore, I've added an offset 0.4375,
i.e. one half minus one sixteenth, to all arguments to
`interpolate_at_offset()`.
This also fixes a long-standing bug: if a pull-model interpolation
function is used on a varying, make sure that varying is declared. We
were already doing this only for the AMD pull-model function,
`interpolateAtVertexAMD()`; for reasons which are completely beyond me,
we weren't doing this for the base interpolation functions. I also note
that there are no tests for the interpolation functions for GLSL or
HLSL.
In some cases, we need to get a literal value from a spec constant op.
Mostly relevant when emitting buffers, so implement a 32-bit integer
scalar subset of the evaluator. Can be extended as needed to support
evaluating any specialization constant operation.
When inside a loop, treat any read of outer expressions to happen
multiple times, forcing a temporary of said outer expressions.
This avoids the problem where we can end up relying on loop-invariant code motion to happen in the
compiler when converting optimized shaders.
When loading and storing array types which belong to buffer objects, we
need to treat these values as not being value types. Also, need to
handle array load/store from/to more address space combinations.
We had output dependent on complex_continue being set, but setting that
flag was dependent on unordered_set declaration order. Make it invariant
to ordering and change the implementation so it knows about the new
temporary hoisting for access chains.
Some fallout where internal functions are using stronger types.
Overkill to move everything over to strong types right now, but perhaps
move over to it slowly over time.
This was straightforward to implement in GLSL. The
`ShadingRateInterlockOrderedEXT` and `ShadingRateInterlockUnorderedEXT`
modes aren't implemented yet, because we don't support
`SPV_NV_shading_rate` or `SPV_EXT_fragment_invocation_density` yet.
HLSL and MSL were more interesting. They don't support this directly,
but they do support marking resources as "rasterizer ordered," which
does roughly the same thing. So this implementation scans all accesses
inside the critical section and marks all storage resources found
therein as rasterizer ordered. They also don't support the fine-grained
controls on pixel- vs. sample-level interlock and disabling ordering
guarantees that GLSL and SPIR-V do, but that's OK. "Unordered" here
merely means the order is undefined; that it just so happens to be the
same as rasterizer order is immaterial. As for pixel- vs. sample-level
interlock, Vulkan explicitly states:
> With sample shading enabled, [the `PixelInterlockOrderedEXT` and
> `PixelInterlockUnorderedEXT`] execution modes are treated like
> `SampleInterlockOrderedEXT` or `SampleInterlockUnorderedEXT`
> respectively.
and:
> If [the `SampleInterlockOrderedEXT` or `SampleInterlockUnorderedEXT`]
> execution modes are used in single-sample mode they are treated like
> `PixelInterlockOrderedEXT` or `PixelInterlockUnorderedEXT`
> respectively.
So this will DTRT for MoltenVK and gfx-rs, at least.
MSL additionally supports multiple raster order groups; resources that
are not accessed together can be placed in different ROGs to allow them
to be synchronized separately. A more sophisticated analysis might be
able to place resources optimally, but that's outside the scope of this
change. For now, we assign all resources to group 0, which should do for
our purposes.
`glslang` doesn't support the `RasterizerOrdered` UAVs this
implementation produces for HLSL, so the test case needs `fxc.exe`.
It also insists on GLSL 4.50 for `GL_ARB_fragment_shader_interlock`,
even though the spec says it needs either 4.20 or
`GL_ARB_shader_image_load_store`; and it doesn't support the
`GL_NV_fragment_shader_interlock` extension at all. So I haven't been
able to test those code paths.
Fixes#1002.
This change introduces functions and in one case, a class, to support
the `VK_KHR_sampler_ycbcr_conversion` extension. Except in the case of
GBGR8 and BGRG8 formats, for which Metal natively supports implicit
chroma reconstruction, we're on our own here. We have to do everything
ourselves. Much of the complexity comes from the need to support
multiple planes, which must now be passed to functions that use the
corresponding combined image-samplers. The rest is from the actual
Y'CbCr conversion itself, which requires additional post-processing of
the sample retrieved from the image.
Passing sampled images to a function was a particular problem. To
support this, I've added a new class which is emitted to MSL shaders
that pass sampled images with Y'CbCr conversions attached around. It
can handle sampled images with or without Y'CbCr conversion. This is an
awful abomination that should not exist, but I'm worried that there's
some shader out there which does this. This support requires Metal 2.0
to work properly, because it uses default-constructed texture objects,
which were only added in MSL 2. I'm not even going to get into arrays of
combined image-samplers--that's a whole other can of worms. They are
deliberately unsupported in this change.
I've taken the liberty of refactoring the support for texture swizzling
while I'm at it. It's now treated as a post-processing step similar to
Y'CbCr conversion. I'd like to think this is cleaner than having
everything in `to_function_name()`/`to_function_args()`. It still looks
really hairy, though. I did, however, get rid of the explicit type
arguments to `spvGatherSwizzle()`/`spvGatherCompareSwizzle()`.
Update the C API. In addition to supporting this new functionality, add
some compiler options that I added in previous changes, but for which I
neglected to update the C API.
When merging combined image samplers, we only looked at sampler, but DXC
emits RelaxedPrecision only for texture. Does not hurt to check for more
things.
This is quite complex since we cannot flush Phi inside the case labels,
we have to do it outside by emitting a lot of manual branches ourselves.
This should be extremely rare, but we need to handle this case.
We used to use the Binding decoration for this, but this method is
hopelessly broken. If no explicit MSL resource remapping exists, we
remap automatically in a manner which should always "just work".
This is rather shaky, but we don't have many choices here except add a
lot of awkward and unintuitive options. Try to deduce this from OpSource
and fallback to heuristic.
There is a risk that we try to preserve a loop variable through multiple
iterations, even though the dominating block is inside a loop.
Fix this by analyzing if a block starts off by writing to a variable. In
that case, there cannot be any preservation going on. If we don't, pretend the
loop header is reading the variable, which moves the variable to an
appropriate scope.
